Who will be the Democratic Nominee in 2004 and why?

[Evil One]

MMMMMM. Politics. Yum.

Who is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004? The democrats have a hard choice to make between moderates (Lieberman, Edwards, Graham) and those a little further left (Gebhardt, Kerry). Dean is even further to the left. Kuchinich, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton are further out than that.

Here is my opinion. The further left you are, the more unelectable you become. Look at what happened to McGovern in 1968. Therefore, you have to at least talk like a moderate to have a chance. (Bill Clinton comes to mind.)

Unless Edwards or Graham catch fire in the next few months, I think it will come down to Kerry, Gebhardt and Lieberman. As long as Kerry can talk like a moderate, he'll stay in the game. Gebhardt will be the darling of the unions, but I think he's perceived as too liberal. He can't escape all those years as the voice of the opposition as Minority Leader in the House. That leaves Lieberman. He carrys the "revenge for the stolen election" martyrdom and is consistently moderate. But he's not as charismatic as Kerry or Gebhardt. And charisma is important to superficial voters.

So who do I think it will be? Kerry.

[SnoopyFan]

I think it will be either Kerry or Gephardt.

Kerry because, as you said, he does have charisma. Plus thus far he has more name recognition than anyone else. Gephardt because he's been around since the Stone Ages.

Lieberman doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The dems would be nuts to nominate him.

In the end I think it'll be Kerry.

[galen]

Sigh.

It won't be kucinich (http://www.kucinich.net/) , he who would repeal NAFTA and the Patriot Act and establish a Department of Peace.

It will be one of the "I mostly agree with the President except on certain envioronmental issues and abortion" Republican-lite Democrats. Bush will then win another term to allow the neocons to continue to destroy the country, plunder the US treasury, and impose their will in the entire planet.

[Evil One]

I do agree that Bush will be re-elected. I think that when the 9/11 attacks happened, the philosophy of the left took a major blow. I think it will be years before that changes.

[Moeman]

Begin Hyjack

Fun time.....Sorry for the fun hyjack.


Randy of the Red Woods from Mtv. Because it is time for a hippy to take over for a while. Does anyone know what ever happened to him?


End Hyjack

[DMark]

Howard Dean.

I don't think Bush will be re-elected.
The lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction, a crappy economy, no Osama, No Saddam, no safer from terrorism...it will all come back to haunt him.

[Evil One]

I disagree, DMark. Dean is too far left. If he does manage to win the nomination because Democrats are not thinking long term, he will end up like Dukakis in 1988.

[Moeman]

Another thing hurting Bush is no being in full control of Iraq. The losing of one or two soldiers here and there looks really bad.

[dantheman]

Shoot, I was going to say Randee of the Redwoods, too. Or maybe Zippy the Pinhead.

Howard Dean's not that terribly far left. And he was the only one of these candidates to come out against the war. That could work for him - or sink him. We'll have to see what the country's mood is regarding Iraq next year.

[Evil One]

I don't think the Iraq war is going to hurt Bush. Democrats are going to vote against him anyway. Republicans will vote for him. The swing votes are the moderates. That's why you have to be a moderate to win. I thought for certain that Bill Clinton was going to lose in 1996...but I let my heart talk instead of my head. Unless someone says "Why yes, I falsified intelligence data and GWB knew it" or the economy is in the toilet, Bush will serve two terms.

[E. Thorp]

I think the Democrats are more likely to nominate the conservative Kerry than the moderate Dean.

[crackpot theory]
If the Democrats nominate Gephardt or Lieberman, that means they consider Bush unbeatable and are conceding the election to him, hoping to come back strong in 2008 (with H. Clinton?). The 2004 nominee would essentially be getting a reward for years of service, probably improving his chances for lucrative work in the private sector after leaving Congress. I think this is what the Democrats were doing for Mondale in 1984, and the Republicans for Dole in 1996.
[/crackpot theory]

[urban1a]

Howard Dean impressed me one night. At a local gay bar, last September or October, we were having a voter registration drive for the local elections.

Dean showed up that night and gave a short speech (he had just announced). Among other things he told us that if he were elected, we (the gay community) would have the same rights as gays in Vermont (civil union).

I don't believe it, but you can bet he may be the only Democrat to appear in a gay bar. The republicans sure won't.

I'll watch the democrats carefully and investigate the front runners. Certainly I'm looking for the one who has the best chance to defeat Bush. But I believe that Dean would be a good candidate.

Bob

[urban1a]

Howard Dean impressed me one night. At a local gay bar, last September or October, we were having a voter registration drive for the local elections.

Dean showed up that night and gave a short speech (he had just announced). Among other things he told us that if he were elected, we (the gay community) would have the same rights as gays in Vermont (civil union).

I don't believe it, but you can bet he may be the only Democrat to appear in a gay bar. The republicans sure won't.

I'll watch the democrats carefully and investigate the front runners. Certainly I'm looking for the one who has the best chance to defeat Bush. But I believe that Dean would be a good candidate.

Bob

[Dumbguy]

As evidence of how bulletproof Bush seems to be, I keep hearing people say he'll win unless the economy goes in the toilet. The economy is in the toilet.

Lieberman's not even a Democrat. I thought Jon Stewart summed him up pretty accurately. 'He's the candidate for people that want to vote for George Bush, but don't think he's Jewish enough.'

I think Kerry wins the nomination in spite of the fact that he's a bigger stiff than Gore and then gets a Bob Dole sized pounding in the general election.

[Saxman]

The nominee will be John Kerry.

And to those who keep repeating mass media cliches about him, like "he's stiff" etc, have you ever heard him speak in anything other than a soundbite? The man's got some serious horsepower, rhetorically and nonverbally. Besides, anyone who riffs out "We got our asses handed to us" to a reporter, on the record, can't be too uptight.

[aaslatten]

Dean is interesting, but I don't think he'll get the nomination. He's too much of a free thinker.

[dantheman]

Dean's not stiff, but he needs to quit bickering with Dean. Form a platform, take a stand on issues and make sure that stand is promoted, etc.

[Toddly]

I don't think that Lieberman or Gephardt would stand a chance. I guess that leaves Kerry as the best choice at this time although if they could get John McCain as a free agent he would be a solid candidate.;)

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Evil One
I do agree that Bush will be re-elected. I think that when the 9/11 attacks happened, the philosophy of the left took a major blow. I think it will be years before that changes.

You mean the philosophy of "appeasement at any cost, no matter how many Americans must die", right? Well, I can see how that might take "a major blow".

[Mahaloth]

Kerry will probably get it, but he can't win.

The Democrats are as screwed as they were in 1991, only then, Bill Clinton and the economy saved them.

They need something like that again.

[DMark]

A slight hijack that I hope doesn't send this to Great Debates...I am tired of people saying Dean is too liberal. Just because you have Idi Amin on one side of the spectrum, doesn't mean you have to meet the fascists half way.
I think it is time Democrats got back to their original roots.
I would rather go down in a huge defeat trying to steer America back on course, than to "settle" for half-ass victory.
Besides, I think there is a lot more support for some good-ol'-fashion liberal backbone than people give credit for.
The over 65 crowd will like Dean's plans for Medicare.
The under 35 crowd will appreciate his environmental, foreign policy and moral stands.
The middle age group, if they can get their heads out of Bush's butt long enough, will appreciate the fact that taxes can be used to better the economy and not just finance a foray into Iran.

I believe it was Martin Sheen who said he liked Howard Dean because "he is not afraid to lose". It takes guts to go against the mindless flag waving bigots running the country right now, and I would rather see someone totally jump off that right wing bandwagon and go for democratic idealism. I personally think Howard Dean is the man to do it, and I seriously think he stands a fighting chance of winning it!

[Mahaloth]

Originally posted by Mahaloth
Kerry will probably get it, but he can't win.

The Democrats are as screwed as they were in 1991, only then, Bill Clinton and the economy saved them.

They need something like that again.

Oh, and a third party candidate like Perot, who can pull from Bush's votes, would help.

[Governor Quinn]

Some comments:

Dean will be unlikely, especially considering the disagreements in philosophy between Governor Dean (a DLCer) and Candidate Dean.

Kerry's a good choice, but he's hurt by the fact that he's pledged not to spend any of his wife's money on this campaign.

Kucinich has a reputation as a flake, and Mosely-Braun has (literally) no money.

While he's not as conservative as some of the previous posters have suggested, Lieberman is still probably not going to get the nomination. He doesn't have the base that the past moderates that got the nomination (Clinton and Carter) had.

Graham's a good candidate, but he's a little sick and a little old.

Edwards? You can't be serious. Arguing that Bush (who I don't care for, so don't get me wrong) lacks stature could work, but it won't if you nominate a one-term Senator.

Sharpton has two problems: He's universally disliked outside the balck community, and a substantial number of those inside the black community won't vote for him.

Gephardt has labor backing, but that doesn't amount to as much as it used to.

The Governor's final prediction: Kerry or Gephardt, with Edwards as the VP nominee. No clue about who wins the general election.

[Evil One]

Dmark, I believe you are thinking with your heart instead of your head. An obvious left-wing candidate has not succeeded in decades, if ever. Any historians are welcome to provide an example of a left-winger who won the Presidency besides Jimmy Carter. McGovern was killed at the polls, as were Mondale and Dukakis. Anti-Republican bitterness over Watergate propelled Carter into the White House and then only by a very narrow margin. Johnson had Kennedy sympathy going for him. Clinton talked like a moderate, or even a Republican depending on his audience. If Dean lasts until the first Super Tuesday, he'll fade at that point. As far as the presidential election itself goes, if Ralph Nadar wins again, GWB will owe him a stay in the Lincoln Bedroom during the second term. Nobody else in the country would have had more influence in getting him re-elected.

[DMark]

Originally posted by Evil One
Dmark, I believe you are thinking with your heart instead of your head.

Sitting here in redneck Nevada, I probably should agree with you, but I don't.

Even the right wing Republican Mormon lawyers I am currently working with are mumbling about George Bush in unflattering words. Iraq is not playing well.

Granted, Dean would be about the most opposite of candidates versus Bush. But Dean is a real-life, medical doctor. Say what you will, but if he is actually selected as the Democratic candidate, that will pull a lot of weight with a lot of people. Health care is a lot more important than the polls reflect. Even die-hard Republicans could rationalize voting for him to pay for their loved one's cancer bills.

Not only that, but Dean is nobody's fool...he can kick butt in a debate.

Plus, watch the money that goes to Dean if he wins even one state in the primary elections. In the last election, Democrat=wimp.

I believe I am the tip of the iceberg in telling you that this time, Democrat=Pissed Off American. And if the Republicans don't like it, THEY can move to Iraq.

[kniz]

Originally posted by DMark
Howard Dean.

I don't think Bush will be re-elected.
The lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction, a crappy economy, no Osama, No Saddam, no safer from terrorism...it will all come back to haunt him.
If I were a Democrat, I'd hate to be counting on those conditions remaining as they are until the election. If either Osama or Saddam are captured and the economy picks up, that will nullify any political hay to be made from these issues.

As to the "safer from terrorism", I personally don't feel I was ever in danger from it. 9/11 pissed me off, but as long as I don't live in New York, Washington DC or a couple other cities I've got a lot more to worry about from lightning or a tornado, than terrorism.

Then add into the mix the fact that Hillary does not want the Dems to win this time, since that would mess up her run in 2008.

I think Kerry should be the candidate because the political cartoonists will have a ball with that hair and face.

[Evil One]

The lastest poll I saw on Fox News (yes, I know) said that Bush had an approval rating of 65 percent and a disapproval rating of 25 percent. Therefore, I think the Democratic candidate will have to be strong enough to make people change thier minds rather than voting for the "anti-Bush". That's where leftist politics will hurt. The country is just not open to those kinds of ideas. If it were, we would have a ntional health care system, much higher taxes, legalized marijuana, stricter environmental laws, no death penalty....the list goes on. Here are a few "ifs" for Dean. IF he tones down the leftist stuff and goes for the center...and IF he attacks Kerry head on...and IF he gets a high enough profile to last into March of 2004...then he might have a chance. But if he stays to his message, he'll be gone by the end of March.

[El Gui]

Kerry as the nominee and either Edwards or Wesley Clark for VP.

Liebermann's poll numbers are likely due to mostly name recognition, at least I hope so.

I would prefer Dean for the VP slot, but his state would be too close to Kerry's. A southerner in one or both slots; otherwise little chance of a win, IMHO.

[Evil One]

Kerry will have to choose a southerner or westerner as the VP candidate...although these days, I'm not sure how urgent "regional diversity" is for the ticket. Will Edwards accept the VP slot? People who run for the big job usually don't.

[IUHomer]

If the economy picks up before next November, Bush will win no matter who he is up against.

No way Lieberman will be nominated. I agree that would be like the Dems conceding the election to Bush. I do not in any way mean for this statement to be taken as racist or derogatory towards Jews, but for the US to elect a Jewish president in the first election after 9/11 would be like an open invitation for the entire Muslim world to step up terrorist attacks against anything remotely American.

If you truly believe that you are safe from terrorist attacks because you don't live in a big city, I think you are a bit naive.

Probably Kerry or Edwards. And Hillary will run in 2008, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why the Dems would want her as a noiminee OTHER than the fact that her last name is Clinton. They're basically stooping to the level of the Republicans by doing this. In 2000, they didn't have anyone so they ran W because the last name was Bush. It would appear this same logic would apply to Senator Clinton in 2008 for the other party. Eight years in Congress = qualified to be president? I guess. I'd honestly prefer if they just ran Bill again rather than her. Its going to be much harder for her to win a national election that it was to win a handpicked state election against basically a no name, generic Republican candidate.

[japatlgt]

I predict the dems will offer Algore sufficient 'incentives' to entice him into another go as he will be their only chance in hell of ousting GWB. They'll still lose but not as embarrassingly as they will with the other dorks.

[Evil One]

I also think that GWB is going to be re-elected. The pull between the left and the center is going to tear the Democrats apart internally to some degree. The Republicans have sort of the same problem with people on the far right. I think both parties will end up taking their bases for granted and concentrating on moderates. An anti-war San Francisco lesbian is never going to vote Republican. An Assembly of God Pastor is never going to vote Democrat.

[Sterra]

I think that Dean will win. Because the biggest problem he is facing is that he is an unknown. Once people realise that Dean and Kerry are very similar ideologically democrats will start going over to Dean. Because Dean is getting the independents currently and Kerry is getting the democrats and all the democrats are is against Bush while the independents need a bigger reason to vote.

Dean is going to win because he manages to appeal to both the left and the center and because the people who managed to lose the 2000 election and the 2002 election both of which should have been easy wins for Democrats are backing Kerry.

[Evil One]

I am not a Democrat, so perhaps I can't see Dean's appeal. He has been anti-war from the beginning, which may help him among his core audience, but I'm not sure it will in the general election. Looking at the pack, it just seems like Kerry has the credibility to pull it off.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by japatlgt
I predict the dems will offer Algore sufficient 'incentives' to entice him into another go as he will be their only chance in hell of ousting GWB. They'll still lose but not as embarrassingly as they will with the other dorks.

I don't think so. I think the party on the whole isn't too pleased with Gore or the way he ran his campaign in 2000. They know he came off as effete, snobby, and quite the wonk. A real candidate should have blown Bush out of the water, and Gore only came realreal close, winning the popular vote.

It's true that at least he has some kind of real political pedigree, more than the actual candidates, but that wouldn't be enough, IMO.

There's a neat column by Howie Kurtz in the Washington Post that talks about how there are far too many candidates now, and how some Dems want to somehow trim the list a little (i.e., keep Kuchinich, Mosely-Braun, and Sharpton out of the debates). The reason for this is that there's simply not enough press to go around, and the big names like Kerry et al. are reduced to the tiniest of sound bites when they need to share a stage with the lesser candidates.

[Sterra]

Originally posted by Evil One
I am not a Democrat, so perhaps I can't see Dean's appeal. He has been anti-war from the beginning, which may help him among his core audience, but I'm not sure it will in the general election. Looking at the pack, it just seems like Kerry has the credibility to pull it off.
People are realising now that being pro-war now is an incredibly bad idea. Wesley Clark recently just accused the Bush Administration of making the al Quaeda and Saddam connection without any evidence. Kerry recently adopted Dean's position and is now starting to say that we were misled on the Iraqi war.

[Evil One]

Originally posted by Sterra
Wesley Clark recently just accused the Bush Administration of making the al Quaeda and Saddam connection without any evidence. Kerry recently adopted Dean's position and is now starting to say that we were misled on the Iraqi war.

It's a huge gamble to talk like this too soon. All it takes is for something to be found in a cave somewhere or for someone to talk and the folks like Dean and Clark will look like idiots. A certain percentage of people will believe anything negative about Bush, despite any evidence to the contrary. Those folks are going to vote Democratic anyway. Bold pronouncements now could come back to haunt later on.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Evil One
It's a huge gamble to talk like this too soon. All it takes is for something to be found in a cave somewhere or for someone to talk and the folks like Dean and Clark will look like idiots.
Depends.

If they find 500,000 tons of anthraxin a cave somewhere, then Dean and Clark will look like idiots.

If they find a microscope slide with a desscated anthrax bug on it, then Dean and Clark will look vindicated ("Our servicemen risked their lives for this?").

Of course, if they find anything at all in the cave, the Bushistas will claim it as "proof" of Iraqi WMDs, regardless of what it actually is.

[Evil One]

Exactly my point. There will never be enough evidence to satisfy some people. Saddam himself could show up on thier doorstep with a signed affidavit of his intent and it wouldn't be enough. The key is going to be what people not blinded by ideology will believe. They are the ones who will decide the presidency in 2004. The 20 percent or so of voters who aren't locked into either camp.

[Sterra]

Gore tried to go after swing voters and I think that it showed what a losing strategy that was. Swing voters matter, but so does simply keeping your base interested enough to vote. Those democratic activists who hate Bush aren't going to bother to vote for someone who seems to be just like Bush.

I mean when you look at the 2000 election you see people uninterested in politics and making fun of both candidates for trying to do that. When the candidates take positions on things they risk losing, but they also have the chance of winning.

[AHunter3]

I am astonished that GW Bush would stand a chance against anyone besides maybe Al Sharpton. Isn't his approval rating in the upper 40s at best?

[dantheman]

I don't think so. Maybe I misread, but I think it's in the 65 range.

Ah here we go, an actual cite:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030620.asp


Bush Approval Rating Stabilizes at 63%
Ratings of Bush on issues show postwar decline

[Evil One]

The latest poll I saw showed GWB's approval rating at 65 percent.

[Sterra]

Bush has high approval ratings, but the number of people who would vote for him again is small.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71235,00.html

44% and that is from fox.

[Reeder]

I disagree on Kucinich (http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/kucinich.html). I think he is electable. I believe the electorate will be tired of the right wing warmongering and general meanness. They will be ready for the left wing for awhile. He is the only presidential candidate who voted against the war. Outside of Dean who couldn't vote. He has my support.

[Evil One]

Originally posted by Reeder
I believe the electorate will be tired of the right wing warmongering and general meanness.

The problem, Reeder, is that the majority of people don't see things that way. Millions of people, including myself, think that President Bush is doing what has needed to be done for twenty years. I think the result will be a safer world for the United States in the long term. Turning away from a debate on general ideology and back to the topic at hand, Kucinich's views appeal to many people....but not enough of them to make him a viable candidate. He will be gone by early March, if not sooner, along with Sharpton and Moseley-Braun.

[Evil Captor]

As one Evil to another, Evil One, I must point out that just have millions seeing it your way doesn't cut it. Your candidate has to have MORE millions than the opposition does.

My feeling is that Dean is the most viable candidate, and that Bush is a lot more vulnerable than he seems. Because, see, it won't matter if the economy improves, but it's one of those JOBLESS recoveries. Jobless recoveries only help the investor class, a small percentage of the voting class.

Look for a very sharp battle in 2004. Anybody but Lieberman oughtta be able to swing it. If the Dems go centrist with Lieberman or another Repub lite, they'll find that most voters will say, "Well, since there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between these guys, I'll go with the devil I know." Unfortunately, I don't know if the Democratic "Leadership" Committee will be able to figure this out.

[plnnr]

Kerry: he's got experience, credibility in the defense arena (cant' wait to hear a debate between Kerry (wounded in Vietnam) and Bush (cut his hand opening a beer bottle at an Texas Air National Guard kegger), and is centrist enough without being RepublicanLight.

[Evil One]

Evil Captor, I go back to history. The further left a candidate is, the worse he does nationally. The country is simply not open to "Socialism Lite". If they were, there would not be Republican majorities in both houses of congress. Each party has a loyal base that will not stray. The key is the middle. Not bound by ideology or one or two hot button issues. Comfortable but not rich, agreeing in general with some liberal principals but not really wanting to pay higher taxes. Concerned about national defense and their own security. Who will they choose? They loved Reagan...and I think they'll like Bush.

[Evil One]

Originally posted by plnnr
Kerry: he's got experience, credibility in the defense arena (cant' wait to hear a debate between Kerry (wounded in Vietnam) and Bush (cut his hand opening a beer bottle at an Texas Air National Guard kegger), and is centrist enough without being RepublicanLight.

Bob Dole had plenty of credibility in this regard over Bill Clinton, but that didn't seem to make a difference. Dole, if you recall, was wounded in WWII. Clinton ran to Oxford. Kerry doesn't want to take on Bush on national defense because it's one of Bush's strengths. Bush has proven himself many times over to those who desire a strong response to terrorism. If Kerry can convince people he will be just as strong and can fix the economy (assuming it's broken a year from now) things could get interesting. If the economy improves, look for Bush to win 35-40 states.

[plnnr]

But at the time of Clinton vs. Dole the news wasn't reporting about American soilders as being killed in a war that was marginally supported at home and resoundingly NOT supported by the majority of our allies. Clinto ran to Oxford? Who cares, no one's shooting at us (by and large). That, I believe, was the sentiment at the time.

[Evil One]

I see your point. If you are saying, in effect, that involvement in the Iraq war is going to hurt Bush at the polls, I disagree. But the depth of anti-war sentiment among voters is going to be revealed by which Democratic candidate they support. If it's a primary issue for them, Dean and to some degree Kuchinch will benefit.

[Sterra]

Originally posted by Evil One
Evil Captor, I go back to history. The further left a candidate is, the worse he does nationally. The country is simply not open to "Socialism Lite". If they were, there would not be Republican majorities in both houses of congress. Each party has a loyal base that will not stray. The key is the middle. Not bound by ideology or one or two hot button issues. Comfortable but not rich, agreeing in general with some liberal principals but not really wanting to pay higher taxes. Concerned about national defense and their own security. Who will they choose? They loved Reagan...and I think they'll like Bush.
There are Republican majorities in both houses because Democrats tried to take the middle. Whats more I'd say the issues don't matter that much to the majority of voters. I mean look at all the recent presidents and tell me when the one with more charisma loses to the one with less charisma. That hasn't happened in a long while.

And even on the issues Bush's record works against him. He cut taxes, but only 8% of Republicans think that they actually benifitted from the tax cuts. He went to war in Iraq, but the reconstruction isn't going so well and well where are the WMDs. His predecessor had a great economy while he was in office and Bush has been predicting that the economy will recover for a long while now.

If you look at the polls most people care more about the economy and healthcare than security. Whats more Bush has never really showed that he is making the country safer in any real way. The idea that the WMDs were looted and sold to terrorists would take away Bush's strongest appeal.

[Evil One]

Originally posted by Sterra
There are Republican majorities in both houses because Democrats tried to take the middle.


House elections tend to be local. Someone like Maxine Waters from Los Angeles couldn't get elected statewide, but in her district, she's fine. There are far right Republicans who are in the same boat. In the Senate, I come closer to conceding your point, but the races are still somewhat local in nature. Ted Kennedy would not be elected in Utah. Orrin Hatch would not be elected in Massachusetts. There are a lot of Republicans who were elected with solid majorities...as well as Democrats. However, there are a lot of people that agree with the Republican platform...apparently more of them that agree with the Democrats. I can hear some of you now....if voter turnout were higher, more Democrats would be elected. And I think you are right. But people have to make the effort to vote. And it is up to the candidate to inspire them to do so. Which brings us to...charisma.


Originally posted by Sterra
Whats more I'd say the issues don't matter that much to the majority of voters. I mean look at all the recent presidents and tell me when the one with more charisma loses to the one with less charisma. That hasn't happened in a long while.


1960 Charisma Winner-Kennedy, Election Winner-Kennedy
1964 Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Johnson
1968 Chrisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Nixon
1972 Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Nixon
1976 Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Carter
1980-Charisma Winner-Reagan, Election Winner-Reagan
1984-Charisma Winner-Reagan, Election Winner-Reagan
1988-Chrisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Bush (41)
1992-Charisma Winner-Clinton, Election Winner-Clinton
1996-Charisma Winner-Clinton, Election Winner-Clinton
2000-Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner Bush (43)

Now...In no case since 1960 did someone with more Charisma lose to someone with less. You are right. Superficial voters are a factor in presidential elections. But in only two cases where Charisma was not a factor (Johnson/Goldwater in 1960 and Carter/Ford in 1976) did a Democrat win. Johnson had Kennedy sympathy going for him and Carter had post-Watergate bitterness. (If anyone thinks that any of these four was charismatic, please feel free to object.) In all the other races in in 1968, 1972, 1988 and 2000...an uncharismatic Republican (Nixon twice and both Bush's) won. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton were able to use charisma successfully. However, over the last fifty years, a Democrat was in office only twenty of them.

[brava]

KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT

www.kucinich.us

[kputt]

Originally posted by Evil One
MMMMMM. Politics. Yum.

Who is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004? The democrats have a hard choice to make between moderates (Lieberman, Edwards, Graham) and those a little further left (Gebhardt, Kerry). Dean is even further to the left. Kuchinich, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton are further out than that.

Here is my opinion. The further left you are, the more unelectable you become. Look at what happened to McGovern in 1968. Therefore, you have to at least talk like a moderate to have a chance. (Bill Clinton comes to mind.)

Unless Edwards or Graham catch fire in the next few months, I think it will come down to Kerry, Gebhardt and Lieberman. As long as Kerry can talk like a moderate, he'll stay in the game. Gebhardt will be the darling of the unions, but I think he's perceived as too liberal. He can't escape all those years as the voice of the opposition as Minority Leader in the House. That leaves Lieberman. He carrys the "revenge for the stolen election" martyrdom and is consistently moderate. But he's not as charismatic as Kerry or Gebhardt. And charisma is important to superficial voters.

So who do I think it will be? Kerry.

Gore.

[Evil One]

Things have changed a bit since I began this thread. Bush's poll numbers are down and the Democratic candidates seem to have gone dormant to a large degree, at least in the national media spotlight. I notice that Dean is trying to step a little closer to the center as well. In that regard, I now see Kerry and Dean as the front-runners, with Gebhardt third. I still think Kerry will be the eventual nominee.

[cuauhtemoc]

Steven Hawking dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter meets him at the Pearly Gates and says "Welcome, Dr. Hawking. We didn't expect you quite so early, so unfortunately your room isn't ready yet. You'll have to stay with a few other men in a dormitory until the painters finish up."

"That's fine," says Hawking. It'll give me a chance to make some friends. When he gets to his room, his new roommates are obviously honored to be sharing quarters with the great Steven Hawking.

"I'm very pleased to meet you, sir," says the first. You'll be happy to know that my I.Q. is 180."

"Great!" says Hawking. "We can discuss unified string theory."

The second approaches and shakes Steve's hand. "How do you do, Dr. Hawking? My I.Q. is 145."

"Excellent!" Hawking responds. "I'd love to hear your thoughts on history's great works of literature."

The third roommate sidles up to the great man sheepishly. "I'm also very honored to meet you, Dr. Hawking," says the man, "but I'm afraid my I.Q. is only 95."

"Terrific!" says Hawking. "Tell me, who do you think will be the Democratic nominee in 2004?"